The question thread!

[SulcataIxlude]

Just for fun let's make a thread where you can ask random questions, and hopefully find answers. :O

1. How come the Jewish people never really went across the world forcing folks to convert to Judasim like how Christians, and Muslims did?

2. Let's say your working on a novel series with a friend and he makes a certain alien race overpowered to the point to where they can 'alter the atomical structure of the cosmos' and kill deities with lazer like weapons, and make it seem like they could kick anythings ass with no flaws while my own races are far more realistic when it comes to 'technology and power. How do you handle situations such as that (plus the fact he likes to think up of ways of his characters in the story overpowering all my characters, and such.)

3. How does one improve mental concentration and abilities to imagine things in their own minds?

Have a nice day everyone.

[Talon87]

#1's just speculation on my part, but ...

Most religions don't proselytize to the extent that Christianity does. I think that somewhere very early in that religion's history, proselytization became a prominent activity amongst members and -- when you think about it from a viral or memetic standpoint -- that activity was "evolutionarily favorable" for the religion's success. I think the founders of Islam recognized this, latched on, and have employed similar strategies to those found in Christian history in order to ensure (a) people become Muslim and (b) people remain Muslim. The history of proselytization in Christianity surely dates back to the 3rd century A.D. with the first (Constantinian) Bible when you consider that it's actually in the Gospel of Matthew. (Courtesy of Wiki) "Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands." This line is (naturally) absent from the Old Testament. So that should answer your question in part.

I don't think it's that Judaism is special, per se, or that Jews are less nosy or are kinder religious folk than Christians or Muslims. I mean, think of how few Buddhists you've ever met who try to convert you to their faith, who are afraid for your eternal soul. Not many -- and I've met plenty of Chinese or Japanese individuals who would probably identify themselves as believing at least partially in the teachings of the Mahayana sect of Buddhism. Or think of all the Indians you've met who have ever tried to make you respect their believe in elephantine Ganesh or six-armed Shiva. You don't. You don't really ever see them, even if on a campus like Purdue there are perhaps half as many Indian students as there are whites. Why is this? I just don't think those religions ever developed a "proselytization meme" and (whether by conscious effort now or not) they choose not to develop one in their faith despite observing it at work in the Christian and Islamic circles.

[ZoraJolteon]

Talon's speculation sucks. Zoran speculation is superior.

*thousands of years ago*

Jew 1: Lets go and travel the world spreading our faith!
Jew 2: Good idea.

*meanwhile, in Egypt*

Pharoh: Why is my Pyramid not finished yet?
Some Government bloke: Forgive me oh great one, but our slaveforce has been greatly diminished through famine and disease.
Some other Government bloke: My lord, there are some visitors to our castle. They say they come on behalf of a huge group of people and wish to speak with you.
Pharoh: GENIUS PLAN!

*several months later*

Jew 1: So much for my idea.
Jew 2: I don't think we'll be in any hurry to do that again
Foreman: Less chatting, more pyramid-building! *whip whip*


As for your second question, introduce Q.

[The Morg]

#2: Reframe the story as a "struggle for survival" with the realistic race as protagonists! Then people will root for your creations and denounce the godmoders as a bunch of evil meanies. xd

#3: Drugs

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by SulcataIxlude

2. Let's say your working on a novel series with a friend and he makes a certain alien race overpowered to the point to where they can 'alter the atomical structure of the cosmos' and kill deities with lazer like weapons, and make it seem like they could kick anythings ass with no flaws while my own races are far more realistic when it comes to 'technology and power. How do you handle situations such as that (plus the fact he likes to think up of ways of his characters in the story overpowering all my characters, and such.)

This is basically a question of, "so how do I make my Gundam defeat the Tengen Toppa Gurren-Lagann without giving it hax?", you limit the power of your opponent. Define reality as a game with "rules", and if said alien race is so powerful it can "re-write rules at any time", simply point out that the alien's power cannot manipulate the rules to the point your story no longer functions as a game, since you both agreed on a reality ~ game definition in the beginning. You can argue against anything he says in this regard.

Effectively, I'm saying you should try to get your friend to tone things down rather than "beef yourself up".

Originally Posted by SulcataIxlude

3. How does one improve mental concentration and abilities to imagine things in their own minds?

Puzzles. Lots of puzzles in the morning and night.

I just recently obtained a magazine full of Sudoku to develop coordination and motor skills in my left hand.

[big bad birtha]

Originally Posted by SulcataIxlude

3. How does one improve mental concentration and abilities to imagine things in their own minds?

I won't answer the first two because I can't think for an answer for one. As for two, my stories usually consist of nothing but nonsense, so that wouldn't be an issue for me.

Anyway, I usually play RPGs to do things like that. Honestly, that's about the only way I ever work my brain. Well, if you count daydreaming as working your brain, then I'm constantly working it =D

[Lady Kuno]

I'm not gonna touch 1 and 2.

But for 3 I've always been told I was very creative + imaginative. I don't know why or what I do differently. I just can always think of wierd stuff and it just comes natural to me.

[Lindz]

Yay! Questions!


Why do kitties shake their heads after drinking water (and other stuff I guess)?

[ZoraJolteon]

To make sure no droplets end up stuck to their whiskers and mess with their senses.

[big bad birtha]

Errm....I don't really know that cats shook their heads after drinking water. I have had many many cats as well =O Actually, there was a time when I had like 15.

Anyway, here's some questions of my own.

Why does drool shoot out of my mouth after I yawn?

Why does everyone drive with the hand they don't usually use? (example: I am left handed, but I am more comfortable driving with my right hand.)

[SulcataIxlude]

1. If there was no such thing as religion, how would that effect the social and mental evolution of humanity?

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by SulcataIxlude

1. If there was no such thing as religion, how would that effect the social and mental evolution of humanity?

You wrote '1', so I'm assuming that this could be your personal answer to his question ... but for me, it's a perfectly valid question worth exploring on its own, so here I go!

If there was no such thing as "religion," I think that people would find comfort in other ways. Some of these are the ways that "people who want to believe in God but no longer can" turn to in our current world (e.g. alcohol, drugs, carefree sex). I think there would basically be "a whole bunch more of these people" if religion didn't exist.

Does that mean I think religion is a good thing? Hell no! I think that a personal religion, i.e. a way to live one's life, i.e. a life philosophy is fine. This is why I'm cool with Buddhism and the life philosophical aspects of the Christian faith. "Don't do drugs. Don't murder. Don't commit adultery." Things like that. I say "Good, good" to those things that religion tries to share. What I dislike about religion is the "Santa Claus" portion of it, which (honestly) is the entire comforting part of the religion. (After all, there's little comfort in cold laws like "Thou shalt not covet.") People like to hear that there's a Big Teddy Bear in the Sky who loves them like they were his own son, and who has the power to vanquish any evil, etc. It makes them feel loved, feel special. And people need to feel loved and special (it's part of the way we're hard-wired! No biological doubt about it!) or else they get psycho and/or depressed.

People also get depressed when they consider things like, "If there's no afterlife, then I'm dead when I die. I mean, I am dead dead dead." So they lie to themselves ("Oh, no, there is an afterlife after all! And Grandma's there, and Uncle Herb, and my old golden retriever Sandy!") and they tell themselves that they don't have to be "dead" dead dead when they die -- no, they can "live forever."

Not everyone is like me. And I don't say that to gloat. Believe me, it puts me in a very uncomfortable position (societally) to be able to tell people that I ...
- don't believe in God or the afterlife, but at the same time
- I am not depressed at all; in fact, independent of my religious views in life, I'd say I'm happier now as a young adult than I was as an angsty teen. And when I was a teen, I was at my most religious. (I considered even fully converting to Islam for a time! Wacky, I know!) And as an adult today, I'm of course atheo-agnostic with pretty heavy leanings towards the "atheist" part of that word. It's not that I don't want to believe in God. It's that I want to believe in the truth. And my rational mind tells me, based on what I know, that God is a big fabrication made up by emotionally weak people to try and comfort themselves. And that I'm okay with that realization.

That's the thing: I'm okay with not having an afterlife. I mean, I wish I didn't have to die. I wish I could live forever. I certainly enjoy my life, and am not looking forward to death. But I am comfortable knowing that I was destined to die from the moment I was born; that we are all destined to die; and that we are going to have no more consciousness when we die than the food for the earthworms and maggots that we'll inevitably become. But the thing is, I believe that most people can't handle the truth (quote machine's flyin' away today!), and that religion fulfills a genuine need for them. If they didn't have religion, they'd either (a) kill themselves, (b) turn to an (arguably) more dangerous substitute like drugs or alcohol, or (c) stay clean but stay very, very miserable.

So ......... that's my bit on why people need religion: they're weak. ^_^;

[SulcataIxlude]

Originally Posted by big bad birtha

Why does drool shoot out of my mouth after I yawn?

Why does everyone drive with the hand they don't usually use? (example: I am left handed, but I am more comfortable driving with my right hand.)

1. Maybe your mouth builds up a lot of spittle or something whenever your mouth is closed, so when you yawn it's just the extra spittle squirting out. :O

2. Perhaps it's easier for some people to use their 'opposite' hand when driving, so that way their 'main' hand can be used to help steer the car. I dunno really.

Interesting answer Talon... Now I want to ask what is your view on 'near death experiences?' Also I guess I fit in that camp of 'weak people', because I do hope there is some form of afterlife, since well it just seems like a waste of existence to 'live' while in reality there is no purpose to existence, or even to create/study/and explore if everything in the end has no real purpose or reason why we are exactly 'existing.'

*Notices that came out funny.*

Happy new year everyone.

[Talon87]

That's the unintentional arrogance of humanity, borne from our evolutionary build. I'll speak in less poetic terms ...

Evolutionarily, we are "more fit" because we are creatures who seek out reason. Cause and effect. This is a cognitive trait which has greatly served our species and (for good reason) has been preserved all these years.

"Why is bush red?" --> "Oh look! Fire! What is fire?" --> "Oh look! Hot! Hmm ... could be good when cold weather come. How I make fire?" --> "Oh look! I can make fire like this with stone. Why?" --> "Oh look! This stone have sparklies and can make fire. That stone no have sparklies and no can make fire."

So on and so forth. By seeking out the reasons, the "answers" as it were, to everything we observe in the natural world, this is how Homo sapiens sapiens as a species has endured and how Homo sapiens sapiens as individual organisms learn.

There's just one problem ... we assume that our purpose-based thinking requires a purpose-based Universe, i.e. we assume that there must be some purpose to life, because we observe purposes all around us. How best to explain it ...

Think of the honeybee. I'm sure as a kid, you heard people say, "The honeybee exists to make honey for us." Someone surely said that, I know lots of people said that when I was growing up -- kids' movies, educational curricular materials, and just people I knew. But the reality is, the honeybee doesn't make honey for you or for me. He makes it for himself. His making honey has nothing to do with us. That is, we ascribe an arbitrary purpose to his actions which seem to fit the description. We observe that he makes honey and then we eat it, so we say, "He exists for our pleasure." And this is just wrong. So too I would say it is with the Universe. People say all loads of ridiculous things like ...

- the Universe exists because we exist (umm ... no)
- the Universe is limitless so that we humans never grow bored with it (no!)
- we are alive for some greater purpose (what makes you so sure?)

Why can't we simply be? Like the rock in the pond or the air molecule amongst others in a balloon, you can ascribe a purpose to anything, but that ascription is an artificial act done by humans in an attempt to rationalize the natural world. "Purpose" is no more real nor fake than is color or sound. In the physical world, what is "color"? Is there really such a thing as red or green? Not really -- the phenomenon we prize so highly termed "Vision" is nothing more than the end result of a freak random evolutionary development going way back when when some organism developed a tool for registering EM radiation. "Sound" is nothing more than the arbitrary development of a tool which could register compressed and rarefacted air, and then a brain was able to process this data as meaningful. Would it surprise you to learn that some animals can't hear? Of course not. Or that some animals can hear but can't tell music apart from other sound? Perhaps not. Perhaps it would surprise you to learn that some animals have senses they prize as highly as we do Vision? Senses that we don't have? (e.g. animals that can "see" heat or "hear" voltage)

The ability to detect heat is just as important to an animal as compressed air or EM radiation. Or you could say it is just as unimportant. Indeed, the only reason any physical phenomena have corresponding animal sense organs is because they were randomly acquired but proved to be highly advantageous in the end, e.g. the ability to detect heat is awesome because all terrestrial animals generate more heat than their surroundings.

So my point is, "Vision has a 'purpose,' but that purpose is ascribed by us to try and rationalize it. Vision is by no means 'fundamental' to the Universe, any more than would be some 7th or 8th sense where humans could detect the difference between high-gravity and low-gravity wells in spacetime." And any purpose we may give to life is just as artificially concocted.

It's not to say that you shouldn't value purpose, etc. etc. I'm just saying, value purpose the same way you value vision. It's real to you, but it isn't real to the Universe. And so trying to force 'purpose' on the Universe is pointless. The Universe very well may have no purpose -- indeed, that is my personal belief. Life doesn't exist on Earth for a purpose. Life exists on Earth simply because. No reason. Just the way things turned out.

Note: I use the word "arbitrary" a lot to describe evolutionary traits in this post. I am arguing that the first appearance of those traits was arbitrary, but that their utility proved sufficiently high and for that reason they were kept around. I'm not suggesting that the "keeping around" part of the history was arbitrary. Of course not. There was good reason for us to keep our vision and hearing and smell, etc. Good reason for us to lose our ability to detect voltage through our skin (oh, fish ) when we entered into a terrestrial environment with non-conductive air instead of conductive water touching us. So on and so forth. But just don't think that "nematodes evolved eyes with which to see." No. The more correct way to word it would be, "Nematodes happened to develop a light-sensing organ which could detect the difference between high and low intensity light; this organ was also able to send this data back to a simple brain, which could register and act upon the received data; and this all proved to be very beneficial to nematodes since, incidentally, the more light you can see, the greater the chances that you're close to the surface of the soil. Thus, eyes have proven to be quite useful for nematodes; but the first nematode didn't "evolve" an eye for the purpose of seeing.

[SulcataIxlude]

This question may be odd or too much of a what if scenario, but in the next 100 years or so, what would the world be like?

If nothing was illegal in the world (drugs, prostitution, etc) would that hinder, or help humanity in the long run?

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by SulcataIxlude

If nothing was illegal in the world (drugs, prostitution, etc) would that hinder, or help humanity in the long run?

State of Nature, huh? I'm going to have to go with hinder from a societal standpoint, but help from an evolutionary one. (Make sure you don't stop reading here, or you'll misunderstand my views!) Human society is built around usurping evolution (e.g. modern medicine saves many people who would die in early life normally, and would not be able to pass their genetic maladies on), but while the biologist in me prizes evolution of the species, the doctor inside of me prizes salvation of the human individual -- and that means my desires are at ends with one another.

Or does it? I would philosophically say "No, not necessarily," as I do believe that anything we as humans do IS, by definition, a Natural act because we are beings of Nature operating within Nature and subject to Nature." In other words, all this talk of "artificial life support" and "artificial this" and "artificial that" is nonsense imo. It's as natural as the stones of Mt. McKinley or a salve a chimpanzee makes from leaves and resin to apply to a wound. In other words ...

- the cat evolved claws
- the wolf evolved fangs
- the man evolved the mind

I say our guns, our vaccines, our eyeglasses, all of it is not only fair game, but is within the domain of evolutionary controls, not outside of it.

Do I agree that, at a purely genetic level, humanity is weakening because of our efforts to thwart Natural decisions? Yes. We are increasingly taking away the right to make decisions from Nature (from the cells, from the virii, from everything) and putting it into our hands. We choose when we die. We choose how we die. We choose if we die. Etc. So yes, by all means, we do have humans alive today who are incredibly "Darwinianly unfit" from a purely genetic standpoint and who would never have lived 200 years ago. But genetics is not the be-all end-all to population sciences. It is a start, but only a start. I say, "If humanity can usurp evolution -- a tool Nature created to try and better us -- then let us try." Obviously, if (with the help of all the tools on the table) a person can live 200 years and feel like they're 14 years old, I'd say humanity's doing a bang-up job.

I diverged a bit, didn't I? This was my round-about way of saying that I fooled you in the beginning, and in the end, my solid answer would be humanity would be worse off to return to a state of existence with no laws because our society is built around laws, and society is what separates us from the primates we once were -- genuine animals. We have, if you will, "evolved past" being mere animals. It's time we took our species' future into our own hands.

[SulcataIxlude]

Now if death and nothingness is the ultimate fate of all things, then what exactly is life? Is it merely a gigantic waste of time as things 'exist' before re-embracing the eternal nothingness, or is it merely the bi product of galactical forces at work such as chemicals, energy, pressure, etc?

If a person has a very quiet soft sounding voice, and whenever they attempt to speak louder or for extended periods of time (etc: five minutes or so straight of non stop talking) and after/during when they speak their vocal cords feel sore and their voice crackles a little (despite them being past puberty) how does one amend that problem? Is there any kind of hormones you can have injected in your body to make your voice deeper and louder, or is there any kind of surgery where a doctor can snip and alter your vocals to make your voice sound loud and booming?

[The Morg]

Hmm, I think I've heard of surgery like that. I can't remember where, though, but I think its purpose had something to do with changing one's gender identity.

You can develop new voices by talking to yourself; I can verify from experience that this works. However, it can be pretty annoying if you live with other people. They may come to associate that voice with your being annoying even once you have perfected the voice and everyone else thinks it's awesome.

[SulcataIxlude]

If humans never evolved, what would of evolved to take place as the dominate predator on earth? My guess would be humanoid insects.

[Kasumi Violet]

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a ToosiePop?

[Muyotwo]

If I recall correctly, some college students with too much time on their hands tested that. I think it was something in the early 400 range.

[SulcataIxlude]

What's more addicting: Chicken pumped with niccotine, or coffee mixed with melted chocolate?

[deoxys]

I'll take the latter of the two...

[SulcataIxlude]

If people always bitch about illegals all the time, how come all the people who gripe about illegals don't just grab some weapons, and commit massive genocide against the 'undesirables of society?'

[Loki]

Originally Posted by SulcataIxlude

If people always bitch about illegals all the time, how come all the people who gripe about illegals don't just grab some weapons, and commit massive genocide against the 'undesirables of society?'

I think the words 'massive' and 'genocide' is enough to deter people from doing it.